Desert Snake
Veteran Member
This is where Jesus uses the specific Deific title for Himself.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Names of God
- Thread starter Whyyyyy
- Start date
This is where Jesus uses the specific Deific title for Himself.
In the new testament is where Jesus uses Deific title for himself. Is there anyone on the forum yet who does not know that, do you think?
Tumah
Veteran Member
There are Jewish translations that use "I am" and I even "I was". See my earlier post.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
While translations can make a large difference in some cases, this is not one of them. The meaning is basically the same, and there is no definitive right or wrong here.
Considering that Christians and Jews use both translations, your point is moot.
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
I could quote Lord Sacks (Rabbi Jonathan Sacks who served for over 20 years as Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue, the largest Orthodox synagogue community in Great Britain [Haredi congregations are not members]) that anyone who understands biblical Hebrew knows that
אהיה אשר אהיה is future tense, but I won't.
Tumah has, not surprisingly, correctly noted, "Biblical Hebrew uses the perfective and imperfective aspects and relies on contextual clues to determine whether it was past present or future. So this phrase can be interpreted in a number of ways many of which are found in various Jewish texts."
In this instance, I go with future tense, guided by the quote two verses back that begins - ויאמר כי אהיה עמך
אהיה אשר אהיה is future tense, but I won't.
Tumah has, not surprisingly, correctly noted, "Biblical Hebrew uses the perfective and imperfective aspects and relies on contextual clues to determine whether it was past present or future. So this phrase can be interpreted in a number of ways many of which are found in various Jewish texts."
In this instance, I go with future tense, guided by the quote two verses back that begins - ויאמר כי אהיה עמך
Last edited:
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
The note wasn't correct though. I don't know Modern Hebrew, and thus my translation was not coming from such. It was coming from my knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. Looking at the translation from Robert Alter, while he uses I will be instead of I am, he acknowledges that there is an argument for both, as well as for other translations.
The translation I prefer has probably more to to with the fact that I learned Hebrew during my course work at a Lutheran based college. However, I'm not saying my understanding is the best, or the default view.
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
I have edited my previous post.
nuk pu nuk
ahmi yat ahmi
tat tvam asi
ahea ashur ahea
neti, neti
Exodus 3:14-15
14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.
15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
Nadia Faiazova
Member
Yahveh is the unique name for God. Well, you can pronounce it in a more modern way (cause most of us don't speak an ancient Hebrew). I could compare in some English translations, that most common is used name "Jehovah". It comes from original 4 Hebrew letters (Jews used to omit vowels in ancient Hebrew language).
actually the word god has other names 'el being the Most High God and not yahweh, or jehovah.
Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)
Akivah
Well-Known Member
Actually, vowels are omitted unto the present day. Have you ever seen a Hebrew newspaper?
Super Universe
Defender of God
God said "I am", meaning, "I exist". He gave no name. The Jews took "I am" and used that as His name.
God has never given His name because once it's revealed it would spread like wildfire across the multi-verse. To beings in heaven giving a name provides a great deal of information, where you come from and what you've experienced. To humans, God's name would just be a name. To the beings in heaven the amount of information conveyed would be overwhelming.
God has never given His name because once it's revealed it would spread like wildfire across the multi-verse. To beings in heaven giving a name provides a great deal of information, where you come from and what you've experienced. To humans, God's name would just be a name. To the beings in heaven the amount of information conveyed would be overwhelming.
You have insider information on that subject do ya?
Super Universe
Defender of God
Sometimes it's the outsiders who have the information.
Jedster
Well-Known Member
He could have been experiencing union/oneness or a samahdi-type experience, which most believers do not experience, so see it as a blasphemy.
Many mystics have been murdered for claiming they are one with God.
For example
Mansur Al-Hallaj, Sarmad and other mystics were killed for uttering 'Ana 'l-Ḥaqq'(I am, the Truth/God)
Jesus was smart and got out of the way as John 8:59 says
They took up stones therefore to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Ex. 3:15 "This is what you shall say to the children of Israel, 'YHWH the G-d of your fathers... this is My Name...'"
Ex. 3:14 "...so shall you say to the children of Israel, 'EHYH (I will be), sent me to you'"
Its almost like you never even read the book.
Super Universe
Defender of God
It's almost like I never read the book? Oh, you mean the book that says the Jews chose to worship a golden calf over God? Do you mean the book that says that we should pay a ransom on the census? How did the Rabbi's get the money to God? Or, did they spend the money on nice robes and nice furnishings for their elaborate rooms?
Do you mean the book that says I should sacrifice my best animal on the steps of the temple? How did the Rabbi's get the animal to God? Or, did the temple assistants prepare the animal for that nights meal? That's why they wrote in their books that it has to be the best of the flock and not the sickly ones. But, of course, that rule came from God, right?
How come you don't put to death those who violate the sabbath anymore? How come you don't put to death those who commit adultery? I mean it's in the book, you read that part of the book, haven't you?
It's almost like you never studied primitive cultures and you don't know that writing things down in a book gave it power over the people because most people couldn't read back then. You could put whatever you wanted in the book, the people didn't know one way or the other whether it was from God or the Rabbi.
rosends
Well-Known Member
With all due respect, I think you miss the point. You can choose to
a) reject the divinity and authority of a text
b) impute motives and sociological imperatives on your understandings of ancient cultures
but your fault was in making two claims which were not in line with what the text says:
1. A statement of what God's name is
2. The basic translation of the word Ehyeh.
Super Universe
Defender of God
All changes to argument rules have to be submitted 30 days ahead of time for approval. Use double spacing, Arial font, and bullets for each prospective change to an argument rule.
The primitive humans who were afraid of comets wrote in their book what they wanted to say, not what really happened.
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
Considering that the poster is an adherent of a text that states, in relevant part - "The scribes, the Pharisees, and the priesthood held the Jews in a terrible bondage of ritualism and legalism, a bondage far more real than that of the Roman political rule. The Jews of Jesus' time were not only held in subjugation to the law but were equally bound by the slavish demands of the traditions, which involved and invaded every domain of personal and social life. These minute regulations of conduct pursued and dominated every loyal Jew, and it is not strange that they promptly rejected one of their number who presumed to ignore their sacred traditions, and who dared to flout their long-honored regulations of social conduct." - I, for one, am not surprised by his comments.